Why should consequences matter?

@layman,

layman wrote:

OK, let's say that we have agreed that intentions are one important aspect. So the consequences are not the ONLY thing to be considered.

Well, for the record, I don't agree with that. The only reason I care about intentions is that they have consequences --- including reasonably-expected future consequences after the law passes its judgement. But, fine, I'll play along and pretend we have agreed on your stipulation.

layman wrote:

Here you are talking about specific deterrence rather than general deterrence. But if, as in the example I used, you are assuming that I will again try to blow up thousands of people with a bomb, why should I EVER get out of prison?

Because of three mutually-reinforcing reasons:

The legal system is operating on a limited budget. It has to prioritize its efforts.
Removing competent criminal achievers from the street should take priority over removing inept, underperforming criminals.
Statistically, criminals whose attempts succeed tend to be more competent than criminals whose attempts fail. In my extreme, hypothetical case of the murder attempt by voodoo doll, no deterrence is necessary at all.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I meant in a case like where a child runs out in front of a car where the conditions are such that the driver has no chance of avoiding collision.

Yeah, Leddy, Thomas surely realizes that this statement of his was overbroad:

Quote:

But you're still liable to pay damages, and possibly punitive damages, for the tort you committed. So the law still imposes a disincentive on you.

Not every accident is a tort, making one legally liable. The basic meaning of a "tort" is a "wrong." The mere fact that damages result from (are a consequence of) your actions doesn't make you legally liable, standing alone.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

In my extreme, hypothetical case of the murder attempt by voodoo doll, no deterrence is necessary at all.

As I noted in a post prior to this one, your initial rationale seemed to call for deterrence.

Quote:

•The legal system is operating on a limited budget. It has to prioritize its efforts.

Well, my question (as I perceived it, at least) wasn't really concerned with such pragmatic aspects of the legal system. In fact, even though I used an example of legally-imposed punishment as an illustration, I really didn't mean to confine it to the area of positive law either.

As a theoretical matter, what difference does it make (in law or ethics) is what I was trying to ask.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

As a consequentialist, I have no problem with legal distinctions based on intent

When you refer to yourself as a "consequentialist" do you mean you subscribe to an ethical theory which says that the only way of judging whether any action is good, bad, or neutral is by judging its consequences (alone)?

That's what I'm gathering from the statements you've made here, such as:

Quote:

Well, for the record, I don't agree with that. The only reason I care about intentions is that they have consequences

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Leddy wrote: If you kill someone, it might be an accident in which case you might escape all punishment.

You responded:

Quote:

But you're still liable to pay damages, and possibly punitive damages, for the tort you committed.

Just to keep the issues straight, I don't think "punitive" damages can ever be imposed for an act that was not intentional, no matter how great the damages. The very word "accident" implies that it was not an intentional act.

Even "negligence," which qualifies as a "tort" and which serves as the justification for imposing civil liability, does not warrant "punitive damages" from what I understand.

If it goes beyond mere negligence, to the point where it can be called "wanton disregard," then punitive damages might be awarded, because at that point, it is the virtual equivalent of an intentional action.

For example: I might fire a rifle toward a crowd, only with the intention of "scaring" them. I might actually aim the rifle so as only to go near them. But that is wanton disregard for their safety, and if I unintentionally hit a person, Imma gunna be liable.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

For example: I might fire a rifle toward a crowd, only with the intention of "scaring" them. I might actually aim the rifle so as only to go near them. But that is wanton disregard for their safety, and if I unintentionally hit a person, Imma gunna be liable.

Then again, maybe not. If this was a crowd approaching my crib for the purpose of lynching me, I probably wouldn't be liable, even if I deliberately gunned them all down, ya know?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, my question (as I perceived it, at least) wasn't really concerned with such pragmatic aspects of the legal system. [...]

As a theoretical matter, what difference does it make (in law or ethics) is what I was trying to ask.

I suppose that depends on one's theory of ethics. In my preferred theory of ethics, moral and legal rules are pragmatic means of seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So to me, the pragmatics are inseparable from the theory. Your distinction between them is a false choice to me.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I suppose that depends on one's theory of ethics. In my preferred theory of ethics, moral and legal rules are pragmatic means of seeking the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So to me, the pragmatics are inseparable from the theory. Your distinction between them is a false choice to me.

Well, that always seemed a little problematic to me, Thomas.

Suppose 12 guys would be extremely happy to lynch one guy. Once he's lynched, he can't be happy or unhappy no more, so he don't even count. But even if he did, which is more, 12 or 1?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Suppose 12 guys would be extremely happy to lynch one guy. Once he's lynched, he can't be happy or unhappy no more, so he don't even count. But even if he did, which is more, 12 or 1?

(1) You appear blissfully unaware of the realities of a lynching. It causes excruciating pain to the victims before they die. Quite possibly enough for the misery of the victim to outweigh the aggregate pleasure of the perpetrators. But that's a question we needn't even reach because of point #2.

(2) Which is more, twelve or one? How about several million? That's the number of potential lynching victims. They will experience major, justified anxiety about lynching if their society enforces no legal or moral norms against the practice. The utilitarian calculus, acting on realistic input about human preferences, will not endorse pro-lynching morals or legislation.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

The utilitarian calculus

Who all gets jammed into this "utilitarian calculus?"

Suppose the choice is between 1 American and 12 ISIS cutthroats. Who counts most then?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Who all gets jammed into this "utilitarian calculus?"

In principle, everyone affected by the decision, weighed by the degree to which they're affected.

layman wrote:

Suppose the choice is between 1 American and 12 ISIS cutthroats. Who counts most then?

To determine the most moral course of action, I would have to balance two competing goods. On one hand, letting ISIS win today saves 12 lives today at the cost of one, which is worth doing. On the other hand, letting ISIS win today will encourage it to hijack more people more throats tomorrow. In practice, my decision would depend on the details of the scenario. Your scenario provides insufficient information to make an informed decision.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

If you ask me it's about both, so you're both right.

In making moral judgments, how much, if any, consideration should be given to:

1.The intent and
2. The consequences

We've already established that you're confused. This merely confirms it.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

We've already established that you're confused.

Heh, whatever, Joey.

Between this thread and the other thread you seem very determined to tell me what I am. Do you have some reason for this that you're not disclosing.

In other words, what's your real bitch?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Your scenario provides insufficient information to make an informed decision.

You're right, I wasn't very clear. I meant a choice between who to kill.

Quote:

In principle, everyone affected by the decision, weighed by the degree to which they're affected.

So would that include 1 billion muslims, assuming they might be affected by seeing other muslims killed (or not killed)?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

On one hand, letting ISIS win today saves 12 lives today at the cost of one, which is worth doing.

Well, I see now that you did understand that part (about who to kill). What other details would you be looking for?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

So would that include 1 billion muslims, assuming they might be affected by seeing other muslims killed (or not killed)?

In principle, yes. In practice, of course, only a tiny minority of Muslims sees ISIS primarily as fellow Muslims. The lion's share sees them as murderous scumbags and couldn't care less what happens to them.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

In principle, yes. In practice, of course, only a tiny minority of Muslims sees ISIS primarily as fellow Muslims. The lion's share sees them as murderous scumbags and couldn't care less what happens to them.

Well, whatever it is that makes them happy, I guess you're gunna have to find that out so that you can plug it into your calculus, eh? That could take a lotta time, and require a big-ass calculator. Aint there some shortcut here?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

From what you're saying, all 5 billion or so people in the world need to be considered before you can know what the right thing to do is.

Anybody else? Do dogs count?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Aint there some shortcut here?

Sure. It's called statistics. The farther removed people are from the situation, the less you account for their preferences individually and the more you treat them as parts of a demographic.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Sure. It's called statistics

Statistics, eh? But who trusts them? Michael Mann proved how worthless they can be, didn't he? They let you come to any (pre-chosen) conclusions you want, eh?

http://able2know.org/topic/305125-23#post-6089155

2 Replies

Why should consequences matter?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know